This article nails it.


linky


For a while there, it almost seemed as if President Donald Trump's determined efforts to redirect attention from the Russia scandal were starting to work. The White House had pushed back against every attempt to investigate, and congressional Republicans, from the soap-opera-worthy antics of the House's Devin Nunes to the slow-walking of the Senate's Richard Burr, were going along. Democrats had their hair on fire about health care, and a big tax-cut showdown was looming.

And then Trump fired the FBI director—and made it plain for everyone that the Russia story really does represent a serious threat to American democracy. Because now it's no longer just about how exactly the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election, or whether Trump or his associates merely winked and nodded or actively colluded. It's about whether the public's right to know the truth is stronger than a powerful man's burning desire to keep it hidden.

(05-12-2017 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This article nails it.


linky


For a while there, it almost seemed as if President Donald Trump's determined efforts to redirect attention from the Russia scandal were starting to work. The White House had pushed back against every attempt to investigate, and congressional Republicans, from the soap-opera-worthy antics of the House's Devin Nunes to the slow-walking of the Senate's Richard Burr, were going along. Democrats had their hair on fire about health care, and a big tax-cut showdown was looming.

And then Trump fired the FBI director—and made it plain for everyone that the Russia story really does represent a serious threat to American democracy. Because now it's no longer just about how exactly the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election, or whether Trump or his associates merely winked and nodded or actively colluded. It's about whether the public's right to know the truth is stronger than a powerful man's burning desire to keep it hidden.

I'll start off by saying I voted for a 3rd party not Trump. The real story is not Russia but the epic witch hunt by the media and dems. Despite the MSM and dems whipping up a frenzy, no actual evidence has come out to show that 1) Russia interfered in the election in any way and 2) that if said interference happened, that Trump was involved in it in any way. There is still only vague speculation and conjecture despite months of investigations. It's stunning that we're still talking about this.

The firing of comey is not a constitutional crisis. It was the president's right to fire him. Hell most dems supported his firing until Trump actually did it. You had an FBI director who lacked the confidence of nearly everyone and who had made himself into a public media figure. All the Investigations, which have been fruitless to date, are still pending. There will never be a "right" time to fire comey in the eyes of dems and the MSM because no matter what he does, Trump is always in the wrong in their eyes.

(05-12-2017 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This article nails it.


linky


For a while there, it almost seemed as if President Donald Trump's determined efforts to redirect attention from the Russia scandal were starting to work. The White House had pushed back against every attempt to investigate, and congressional Republicans, from the soap-opera-worthy antics of the House's Devin Nunes to the slow-walking of the Senate's Richard Burr, were going along. Democrats had their hair on fire about health care, and a big tax-cut showdown was looming.

And then Trump fired the FBI director—and made it plain for everyone that the Russia story really does represent a serious threat to American democracy. Because now it's no longer just about how exactly the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election, or whether Trump or his associates merely winked and nodded or actively colluded. It's about whether the public's right to know the truth is stronger than a powerful man's burning desire to keep it hidden.

Motherjones? Lol.

Truth or power. They are not mutually exclusive

(05-12-2017 10:18 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This article nails it.


linky


For a while there, it almost seemed as if President Donald Trump's determined efforts to redirect attention from the Russia scandal were starting to work. The White House had pushed back against every attempt to investigate, and congressional Republicans, from the soap-opera-worthy antics of the House's Devin Nunes to the slow-walking of the Senate's Richard Burr, were going along. Democrats had their hair on fire about health care, and a big tax-cut showdown was looming.

And then Trump fired the FBI director—and made it plain for everyone that the Russia story really does represent a serious threat to American democracy. Because now it's no longer just about how exactly the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election, or whether Trump or his associates merely winked and nodded or actively colluded. It's about whether the public's right to know the truth is stronger than a powerful man's burning desire to keep it hidden.

I'll start off by saying I voted for a 3rd party not Trump. The real story is not Russia but the epic witch hunt by the media and dems. Despite the MSM and dems whipping up a frenzy, no actual evidence has come out to show that 1) Russia interfered in the election in any way and 2) that if said interference happened, that Trump was involved in it in any way. There is still only vague speculation and conjecture despite months of investigations. It's stunning that we're still talking about this.

The firing of comey is not a constitutional crisis. It was the president's right to fire him. Hell most dems supported his firing until Trump actually did it. You had an FBI director who lacked the confidence of nearly everyone and who had made himself into a public media figure. All the Investigations, which have been fruitless to date, are still pending. There will never be a "right" time to fire comey in the eyes of dems and the MSM because no matter what he does, Trump is always in the wrong in their eyes.

I am completely flabbergasted.

How on God's earth are there still people who believe that Russia did not interfere into the Presidential election?

Come on man.

(05-12-2017 11:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I am completely flabbergasted.

How on God's earth are there still people who believe that Russia did not interfere into the Presidential election?

Come on man.

The Russians have interfered in every election in your lifetime.

(05-12-2017 12:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 11:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I am completely flabbergasted.

How on God's earth are there still people who believe that Russia did not interfere into the Presidential election?

Come on man.

The Russians have interfered in every election in your lifetime.

And yet you have people like Jugernaut and Marine who refuse to believe it.


Talk to them, they are your boys.

There's no need because it's meaningless.

The Russians interfered, so did the Chinese, the French, the British, and likely everybody else at one level or another.

We interfere in elections all the time as well.

The only difference this time is the fact that the Russians didn't help your party like they have done for decades.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/democ...th-russia/

Quote:For Russia, no love from the Democrats. After decades of taking every possible opportunity to make excuses for Russia and paint the country in a positive light, President-Elect Donald Trump’s victory in the election has spurred liberals to find a sudden distrust for the Kremlin. No one is buying it.

From the second half the 20th century right through the 21st and until about six months ago, the Democrats largely — except for President John F. Kennedy — have been the pro-Russian party in the United States. What they really loved was the Soviet Union.

Quote:As the latter half of the 20th century progressed, progressives’ love for Russia appeared to grow only stronger. Democrats and liberals went on peace trips to the USSR — usually as members of Soviet-created front groups such as the World Federation of Democratic Youth and the International Organization of Journalists.

Hell, there was even a time when one of your leftist icons BEGGED the Russians to get involved in a Presidential election

Quote:In 1991 it was reported that beloved Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy may have asked the Soviets to help Democrats beat Reagan in the 1984 election. "Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum," wrote Peter Robinson for Forbes in 2009.

Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

'On 9-10 May of this year,' the May 14 memorandum explained, 'Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow… The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.'

Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. 'These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.'

(05-12-2017 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  There's no need because it's meaningless.

The Russians interfered, so did the Chinese, the French, the British, and likely everybody else at one level or another.

We interfere in elections all the time as well.

The only difference this time is the fact that the Russians didn't help your party like they have done for decades.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/democ...th-russia/

Quote:For Russia, no love from the Democrats. After decades of taking every possible opportunity to make excuses for Russia and paint the country in a positive light, President-Elect Donald Trump’s victory in the election has spurred liberals to find a sudden distrust for the Kremlin. No one is buying it.

From the second half the 20th century right through the 21st and until about six months ago, the Democrats largely — except for President John F. Kennedy — have been the pro-Russian party in the United States. What they really loved was the Soviet Union.

Quote:As the latter half of the 20th century progressed, progressives’ love for Russia appeared to grow only stronger. Democrats and liberals went on peace trips to the USSR — usually as members of Soviet-created front groups such as the World Federation of Democratic Youth and the International Organization of Journalists.

Hell, there was even a time when one of your leftist icons BEGGED the Russians to get involved in a Presidential election

Quote:In 1991 it was reported that beloved Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy may have asked the Soviets to help Democrats beat Reagan in the 1984 election. "Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum," wrote Peter Robinson for Forbes in 2009.

Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

'On 9-10 May of this year,' the May 14 memorandum explained, 'Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow… The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.'

Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. 'These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.'

You seem to be implying that they helped your party.

If they did it wasn't by design. In fact if anything their meddling blew up in their faces because they got the worst case scenario they could have gotten....total GOP control of the federal government.

The Russian people are risk-adverse by nature. They crave stability and predictability because they have always been a society that doesn't tolerate failure and nothing causes someone like that more heartburn than not being able to predict what is going to happen.

I believe that the Russians were just like you sheep and bought the media hype and wanted to weaken Clinton as much as possible, and to have a divided federal government. A US government focused on internal political battles isn't as apt to be paying attention to Russian forays elsewhere in the world. They saw how divisions between the executive and legislative branches had thwarted each of the past three Presidents and that was their ultimate goal. The knew that while corrupt as the day is long Clinton was easily predictable....all you have to do to see where she stands on an issue is to read the public opinion polls. They knew that because of her shady past and the fact that scandal follows her around like a puppy there was a good chance her entire term in office would she would be politically weakened enough to where she wouldn't be able to counteract anything they wanted to do in a timely enough manner to stop them.

I believe the absolute last thing they wanted to see was a political unknown, with his party in control of now all three branches of the government, in charge because they have no idea how he is going to act. Think about the shock the American people had when we attacked the airfield in Syria or dropped the MOAB in Afghanistan. Now imagine you are the most risk adverse person you know....multiply it by 10....and think about what kind of reaction you would have. You do that and you'll be close to how the Russian government reacted.

(05-12-2017 11:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I am completely flabbergasted.

How on God's earth are there still people who believe that Russia did not interfere into the Presidential election?

Come on man.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512564533

To the best of my knowledge Russians can't vote in US elections.

(05-12-2017 01:14 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 11:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I am completely flabbergasted.

How on God's earth are there still people who believe that Russia did not interfere into the Presidential election?

Come on man.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512564533

To the best of my knowledge Russians can't vote in US elections.

Neither can "illegals" but that doesn't stop Trump from believing that three million of them did.

(05-12-2017 12:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 11:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I am completely flabbergasted.

How on God's earth are there still people who believe that Russia did not interfere into the Presidential election?

Come on man.

The Russians have interfered in every election in your lifetime.

with zero negative consequence.....

one has to have their head up their arse to think that the superpowers don't influence the brainwashing massage as the message to the masses.....

the beauty in all of this is the msm is deservedly getting tossed on their keyster.....

that's a beautiful thingy.....

what's sad, is they still haven't learned the entire lesson.....